Phatscotty wrote:BVP, what would you do (genuinely curious) if there was a guy on TV, who is not even from your country, broadcasting to your countrymen that he wants to crack down on homosexuality? How do you handle it? What's your response?

Write a letter to the network, state I find the views of the commentator abhorrent and will no longer be watching their network. Then stop watching the network. If I encountered anyone espousing similar views I would argue the point with them, if it became a wider political thing, not just a talk show host, I would write my member of parliament, take part in rallies that sort of thing. You know engage in democracy.

I would not petition my government to deport/jail/punish them. This petition is idiotic and basically an appeal against freedom.

It's effective speech. The petition is the Pimp, the media is the Hoe. It doesn't matter what the speech is, and the fact the some of you find the petition unpopular, is the very speech the first amendment is meant to protect.

Phatscotty wrote:Let me ask you guys something. Just imagine for a minute, you are at the rostrum at a rally of whatever movement is most passionate to you. Let's just say it's gay rights. So, during your rally, some anti-gay guy is invited to the microphone and starts saying that being gay is wrong and it is sinful. Given he makes no hateful threats......are you going to try to tell me honestly that you are going to sit back and say "well, he has the right to speak, we should be respectful and listen" or is it more like "get this piece of shit off the stage" and start throwing tomatoes? Anyone who has a problem with what I have been saying in this thread, I would like an answer.

I think about now many are starting to see how they are being hypocritical here

Was this not on his own TV show?

how timely...

Piers Morgan: Both the Bible and U.S. Constitution Are ‘Inherently Flawed’ and Need to Be Amended

While CNN’s Piers Morgan is a well known critic of America’s Second Amendment, he has now ventured into a new campaign to reform another document critical in the development of western civilization; the Bible.

During a discussion on CNN’s “Piers Morgan Tonight” on Monday — Christmas Eve — with Saddleback Church Pastor Rick Warren, Morgan argued that there needs to be an “amendment to the Bible” for same-sex marriage, because like the Constitution, the Bible is “inherently flawed.”

“Both the Bible and the Constitution were well intentioned but they are basically, inherently flawed. Hence, the need to amend it,” Morgan told Warren during a conversation where Morgan emphasized the need for America to separate Church and State.

“My point to you about gay rights, for example, it’s time for an amendment to the Bible.”

“Uh, no,” replied Warren, in a conversation that remained civil between both parties. “Not a chance. What I believe is flawed is human opinion, because it constantly changes.”

Morgan has attracted more media attention than usual over the last few weeks as he has increased his always vocal cries for increased gun control laws in America following the Newtown elementary school shooting earlier this month. Morgan’s campaign has infuriated Second Amendment enthusiasts, leading to a petition to the White House signed by over 75,000 calling for the CNN host’s deportation back to Britain. This development led to a counter protest in the UK “Stop Piers Morgan from being deported back to the UK from America.”

Warren has debated LGBTQ issues on Morgan’s show before, discussing his thoughts with the host last November on whether or not someone can be born gay.

Phatscotty wrote:BVP, what would you do (genuinely curious) if there was a guy on TV, who is not even from your country, broadcasting to your countrymen that he wants to crack down on homosexuality? How do you handle it? What's your response?

Write a letter to the network, state I find the views of the commentator abhorrent and will no longer be watching their network. Then stop watching the network. If I encountered anyone espousing similar views I would argue the point with them, if it became a wider political thing, not just a talk show host, I would write my member of parliament, take part in rallies that sort of thing. You know engage in democracy.

I would not petition my government to deport/jail/punish them. This petition is idiotic and basically an appeal against freedom.

It's effective speech. The petition is the Pimp, the media is the Hoe. It doesn't matter what the speech is, and the fact the some of you find the petition unpopular, is the very speech the first amendment is meant to protect.

But you Gun-Control-Thirsty-Firsty's know that already...

Yes it's speech, but it's speech asking that the government use force to silence someone. You don't see the problem with that even if it's just an attention grabber?

So you "approve of brutal and illegal acts to enforce a political principle"?It's an honest question.

Heck no, not for our purposes here, concerning some Brit jackass clogging up America's primetime airwaves. We are just using speech right now. I don't really want to tar and feather Piers, but that makes for a nice deposit in the spank-bank. Can anyone paste Pier's face to the tax-collector in the video above? That would have some serious staying power.

But of course, legal/illegal can change. If foreign troops tried to enter my home, then yes I would.

If Piers Morgan succeeds, and guns become illegal, and rebellion, uprisings, resistance and civil war pops off....I think everyone is going to have to make a choice.

These historical things need to be kept in perspective though. Keep in mind, this is post-stampAct, post Boston Massare

Last edited by Phatscotty on Thu Dec 27, 2012 4:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

jonesthecurl wrote:This whole thread is a response to a foreigner.Who can't hear him.

...unless they have my respect. It's not only about foreigners though, I'm just done having the same 101 talking points yelled at me from a foreign understanding over and over and over again. Someone else is going to have to babysit room 101.

So you "approve of brutal and illegal acts to enforce a political principle"?It's an honest question.

Heck no, not for our purposes here, concerning some Brit jackass clogging up America's primetime airwaves. We are just using speech right now. I don't really want to tar and feather Piers, but that makes for a nice deposit in the spank-bank. Can anyone paste Pier's face to the tax-collector in the video above? That would have some serious staying power.

But of course, legal/illegal can change. If foreign troops tried to enter my home, then yes I would.

If Piers Morgan succeeds, and guns become illegal, and rebellion, uprisings, resistance and civil war pops off....I think everyone is going to have to make a choice.

These historical things need to be kept in perspective though. Keep in mind, this is post Boston Massacre

I think that ship sailed when the petition to deport him received its 25000th supporting vote.

The petition is a blatant attempt to use the government to stifle speech and suppress an opinion some people are uncomfortable with. That you're trying to sugarcoat this attempt as "free speech" is really sad. I noticed that you shifted gears early on and went from outright saying you want him deported to trying to justify it as "free speech" and claiming the petition was only meant to send a message. I only hope you realised what a fucking stupid and dangerous thing you were initially supporting, but are just too stubborn to come out and say so.

Let's for a moment assume the US government really does deport Piers Morgan. Would you be ok with that? Would you really want your government to deport people who voice their opinions?

saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.

It's a dispute involving some of our most familiar rights: The right to free speech, to bear arms, and to petition the government. This week, a group of American gun owners is taking on an imported TV personality and petitioning the White House to preserve some of these rights.

Since the mass school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, British-born cable news host Piers Morgan has lashed out at U.S. gun laws and pro-gun advocates. Those advocates have hit back by launching a petition, on the White House website "We the People," calling for Piers Morgan to be deported.

CBS News' Jeff Glor noted Thursday that more than 80,000 people had signed the petition, which accuses Morgan of engaging in a "hostile attack against the U.S. Constitution" by targeting their right to bear arms.

The Obama administration rolled out "We the People" in 2011, allowing anyone to directly petition the government. Petitions that garner 25,000 signatures in 30 days are promised a response from the White House. When President Obama introduced the platform, he said it would provide a forum for the "matters you care about the most." However, since the site launched requests have run the gamut from serious, to not-so-serious, to entirely absurd.

A petition that asks the federal government to "secure resources and funding" to build a Death Star by 2016 has garnered 32,000 signatures, enough to guarantee a response from the administration.

Glor also reported that multiple petitions request for states to secede from the U.S., and that a petition for Texas to withdrawal has more than 122,000 signatures.

While the movement to kick Piers Morgan out of the country may have support, the cable host is laughing it off. Morgan recently tweeted: "Merry Christmas! Even to those who want me deported."

oops, it's over 85,000 now.

anyhew, looks like ole Piers is gonna have to take a shot of Santorum! the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex

notyou2 wrote:You're 4th option is exactly what you are guilty of.....using speech to kill freedom. So it's OK for you to do it but not others?

The depths of your hypocrisy know no limits.

There are limits- he is opposed to campaigning at the place of polling. Feel free to vote your mind, free from any influence he might try. This is now up to the people, and I'm going for the kill freedom ticket all the way.

the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein

notyou2 wrote:You're 4th option is exactly what you are guilty of.....using speech to kill freedom. So it's OK for you to do it but not others?

The depths of your hypocrisy know no limits.

There are limits- he is opposed to campaigning at the place of polling. Feel free to vote your mind, free from any influence he might try. This is now up to the people, and I'm going for the kill freedom ticket all the way.

I hate Piers Morgan more than any other nosy network idiot, but damn, if you can kick him out for his political beliefs, where does it end? Should everyone who questions the law be deported? If you want to turn the U.S. into a communist country, that's exactly the way to go!

AoG for President of the World!!I promise he will put George W. Bush to shame!